So it turns out that the gays are going to ruin your marriage after all.

Read it and weep, straights.

Teh Gays told you that marriage equality wouldn’t impact your marriage. They told you that they just wanted basic civil rights — petty stuff, like the right to be with their partner in the hospital, the right to health insurance, the right to adopt children, and the right to share in end-of-life and other medical decisions. They told you that your marriage wasn’t threatened, and that expanding such an important institution was a good thing.

Well, they lied.

Last month, Rachel Bird exchanged vows with Gideon Codding in a church wedding in front of family and friends. As far as Bird is concerned, she is a bride.

To the state of California, however, she is either “Party A” or “Party B.”

Those are the terms that have replaced “bride” and “groom” on the state’s new gender-neutral marriage licenses. And to Bird and Codding, that is unacceptable.

“We are traditionalists – we just want to be called bride and groom,” said Bird, 25, who works part time for her father’s church. “Those words have been used for generations and now they just changed them.”

In May, after the California State Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal, the courts mandated state officials to provide gender-neutral licenses and other marriage forms. “Bride” and “groom” became “Party A” and “Party B.”

Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding’s medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.

Bird’s father, Doug Bird, pastor of Roseville’s Abundant Life Fellowship, said he is urging couples not to sign the new marriage forms, and that he is getting some support from congregants and colleagues at local churches.

“I would encourage you to refuse to sign marriage licenses with ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B,’ ” he wrote in a letter that he sent to them. “If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.”

It’s so true. And you know, this whole dating-in-New-York thing totally sucks. As a traditionalist, I would really prefer to go back to the time when my father found a proper suitor for me, and then basically sold me for a reasonable price. It’s tradition, and if it weren’t for bitches getting all uppity about their “rights,” it would have never changed. We’ve gone so far down the path to Hell that now the terms “bride” and “groom” — added into marital documents specifically so that we’d all know who called the shots and who controlled all the money and assets — are being replaced with gender-neutral terms. I thought the ladies demanding their own credit cards and checking accounts was bad enough; now with The Gays getting married, the whole system is fucked. After all, gender-neutral terms implies that a marriage is a partnership between two parties, and not a hierarchy. And that, my fine friends, is unacceptable.

If ever there was a time for the people of the United States to stand up and let their voices be heard – this is that time.

I think a lawyer from a far-right organization says it best:

“Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

Indeed. Although really, the argument was debunked when the first straight person had to arrange two little plastic groom decorations atop a wedding cake. That’s some fucked up shit, y’all. And I for one am sick of these gays impacting my relationship and my livelihood. Hopefully the cake issue is next on the Pacific Justice Institute’s docket.

via Amanda.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

46 comments for “So it turns out that the gays are going to ruin your marriage after all.

  1. Bukkakelypse
    September 20, 2008 at 2:28 am

    “To the state of California, however, she is either “Party A” or “Party B.”

    Those are the terms that have replaced “bride” and “groom” on the state’s new gender-neutral marriage licenses.”

    I like how the term ‘party’ is quantity and species neutral as well. Hopefully it’s only a matter of time before zoophiles can marry their dogs, and Muslims/Mormons are free to marry 39 women.

  2. Sydney
    September 20, 2008 at 2:30 am

    Each and every time I convince myself that backward, unhinged assholes like this have reached the very peak of the summit of selfish, hateful, ignorant entitlement, I find myself proven wrong. Yowza.

  3. September 20, 2008 at 2:37 am

    Oh boo hoo hoo. I cry one thousand tears for their “oppression”.
    Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding’s medical benefits or legally take his name.
    To the first, that just means his job only offers benefits to married partners–something they are refusing to do. I think in lieu of a national health plan, employers should offer benefits to families regardless of marriage–but, yeah. No real sympathy.
    As to the second part of that, it’s simply untrue. There is no law against taking your partner’s last name if you aren’t married. She would just have to file name change papers and wait for a court date. Perhaps not quite as simple, but still legally done.

  4. piny
    September 20, 2008 at 5:24 am

    Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding’s medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.

    Deja vu!

    Except, of course, that they could complete the new forms and get all of those awesome benefits, just like every other straight couple. So I guess what I really want to say is,

    Diddums!

  5. September 20, 2008 at 6:26 am

    I have so little sympathy for these people it is shocking.

    And then I thought, maybe I am being too harsh. Maybe I should try to get in their heads, just a little. Maybe that’s what a good person should do. So I read the whole article. And then I got to this:

    And Rachel Bird described her position as “personal – not religious.”

    “We just feel that our rights have been violated,” she said.

    Now please excuse me while I take out my tiny violin.

  6. Sarah T.
    September 20, 2008 at 8:39 am

    The stupidest thing about this is that the couple can travel to 48 other states and get married with a discriminatory wedding license! And California will honor that certificate!

    This is such a publicity stunt. Nevada is less than 5 hours from Sacramento, and they could get a ticket to Vegas for less than $100 bucks.

  7. September 20, 2008 at 9:54 am

    I couldnt’ tell you what the fuck it said on my mariage license. I just signed where the guy pointed. Does she think she cannot refer to herself as a bride anymore. Will she have to wear a shirt on her honeymoon that says “new Party B”. Please, get a fucking grip and realize that your mild inconvience for not liking the wording of this form does not matter when the reverse option is taking REAL rights from others.

  8. Andy
    September 20, 2008 at 10:22 am

    You know what I think is hilarious about that bit of assholery? They both have kids from other relationships. In days gone by (but not TOO long ago) they wouldn’t have been able to get married at all, on account of her being “tainted” and such.

  9. William
    September 20, 2008 at 10:44 am

    “Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals,” said Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute. “This debunks that argument.”

    No, Brad, all the new license proves is that once again the government is prone to fucking things up. If two people want to be listed as “bride and groom,” “party A and party B,” or “Mo, Larry, and Curly” that choice should be just as fluid as the genders of the respective individuals. The problem here, small as it might be, isn’t one of marriage but of bureaucrats who feel the need to define everything rather than just let people be.

    Put another way, now your clients are being bitten in the ass by the same dog that just got chased away from gay marriage.

  10. wall-flower
    September 20, 2008 at 10:45 am

    Haha, this is great. What a bunch of assholes. As a proud citizen of Massachusetts, I happily signed up as “Party A” on our marriage license. I totally want my “New Party A” t-shirt!

  11. wall-flower
    September 20, 2008 at 10:46 am

    Plus, the word “party” suggests marriage could be fun!

  12. September 20, 2008 at 11:02 am

    Oh, that is just bleeding laughable.

    Cry me a river, kids. Your little stunt isn’t going to do much for your ‘rights’ in CA anyway. I’ll love to see what legal action is actually vaguely feasible.

  13. September 20, 2008 at 11:18 am

    What really irritates the piss out of me is that they’re making out like they’ve been discriminated against. “Our rights have been violated,” they say. Except, um, they CHOSE not to fill out those forms. They got to make their own decision.

    Teh Gays haven’t really ever been able to choose. Someone else has decided for us all along.

  14. Sara
    September 20, 2008 at 11:41 am

    I had a guy on facebook post a note about this. He went on to say that because the language changed, the straight marriages performed in California were now deemed illegal. He says marriage is an unchanging, religious tradition first. I haven’t been too keen on taking issue with people over beliefs they hold but this just really got to me so I took him to task. I politely told him that marriage has changed drastically in the last 200 years and it isn’t purely religious. We went back and forth for four days. He still thinks that this ruling is going to affect his marriage.

  15. Eileen
    September 20, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Um, so why does this mean they want to have the whole thing overturned? Shouldn’t they just petition the state to have two versions of the certificate – “traditional” and “non-specific”? If I ever get married it will be to a man, but I would rather be party A or party B than “bride”, but I am all for people having a CHOICE… And since there are already multiple versions (in different languages e.g.) of official forms, wouldn’t this be a ridiculously easy thing to do??
    Sheesh. Haven’t these people heard of common sense?

  16. Pearliepie
    September 20, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    I was just asking my partner this morning how a gay marriage could in any way threaten our marriage. I just didn’t understand it, but now I do! Because my gay friends can get married, I can’t be a bride anymore! OH noes! How dare they take that away from me?
    What a selfish stand to take.

  17. September 20, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Sara: Boggles the mind, that does, not the least reason being that the language change isn’t retroactive and therefore his argument is entirely irrelevant.

    Not to mention pedantic.

  18. auktastic
    September 20, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Oh, Jesus Christ. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life. These people piss me off so much.

    Please, get a fucking grip and realize that your mild inconvience for not liking the wording of this form does not matter when the reverse option is taking REAL rights from others.

    I’d like to take that one step further, mzbitca, because I wouldn’t even say they were inconvenienced! The titles listed on the forms in no way impacted what they would have to do to get married – they just had to sign the fucking dotted line! They just felt like being assholes, basically.

    A marriage license is a legal document, and when a legal document can be signed by anyone, of any gender, there is no reason for gender specific language to be used. There is absolutely NO reason why that should “impact” your whole fucking wedding and whether or not you personally use the terms bride and groom. “This debunks that theory,” my ass.

  19. September 20, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Plus, the word “party” suggests marriage could be fun!

    Maybe that’s what they’re actually objecting to – “Marriage isn’t all fun and games, you know! It’s hard work! We have to, like, submit to all these traditionalist norms and stuff that make our lives harder!” etc.

  20. September 20, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    But everyone loves a party!

    This church dude is such a boob. He’s basically telling his congregation not to get married. Isn’t that contrary to their marriage-happy philosophy? I’ve heard of people rejecting marriage as a statement supporting gay marriage, but as a statement opposing it? Haha!

    And aren’t you just a bride or groom at the time of your marriage ceremony? After that you’re wife and husband. Not that “wife” and “husband” wouldn’t be gender neutral, but the form to begin with made no sense.

  21. September 20, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    I meant to say “Not that ‘wife’ and ‘husband’ would be gender neutral.” Damn you, double negatives! *angry fist*

  22. September 20, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Wow. That’s just… wow, these people are stupid. What I want to know is, how the hell did that get printed in a (presumably) reputable newspaper? Why didn’t the editor take the story and put it somewhere more suitable, like the bottom of a hamster cage?Nasty, selfish, entitled, bigoted… these people are just mean. Oh, and did I mention stupid?

  23. ACG
    September 20, 2008 at 2:21 pm

    This is fantastic. It’s like that show on MTV that I never, ever watch, because that would be shallow and vapid and rot my brain, where they take the spoiled “Super Sweet 16″ers and send them to, like, Nairobi for a week to see how the other half lives.

    “Exiled: GLBT” Watch as two homophobic uber-fundies try to share health insurance and benefits, change their names, visit each other in the hospital, adopt a child, and buy a house together when their relationship isn’t legally recognized by the state. I mean, it’s not like they can’t do it; they just have to fill out some extra forms and stuff, and that’s not a hassle at all, right? Watch as they come to appreciate the struggles of couples who are deprived of basic rights, like marriage, because of their bigotry and intolerance.

    Then watch as they learn absolutely nothing from their experience and return to their previous lives completely unchanged. Monday nights at 8:00.

  24. Reva
    September 20, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    These two knuckleheads are complaining because by their own choice to refuse to sign those forms, they have to figure out how to do without the benefits that gays have been forced to do without for years. It’s justice that is so poetic, it’ll go right over their heads.

    “Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding’s medical benefits or legally take his name. They are now exploring their options, she said.”

  25. September 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm

    That’s funny. My lesbian friends who just got married called themselves “PartyA” and “PartyB” all day long on their wedding day. And then on their license it actually had them as “bride” and “groom,” go figure.

    I love the poetic justice of this piece.

    No on Prop8 (in California)!

  26. CaliOak
    September 20, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    This seems pretty simple and reasonable to me. Marriage (gay or straight, even polygamous really) is an emotional and spriritual, AND practicle and physical tratition. Even gay couples want to participate in a meaningful ritual not just a legalistic state registration. Marriage is also very sexual, so people probably their sexuality acknoledged. (After all if sexuallity didn’t matter gay people could just marry straight people as the conservatives are so fond of pointing out they have a right to do.

    So I propose that “Party A” and “Party B” be replaced with “bride/groom/other” or “bride/groom/transgender” . Then “Party A” and “Party B” will just circle the correct label. Wonder if his church would sign those forms. ;)

    Of course we could just use “spouse” and “spouse” which is traditional, romantic, and gender neutral…but who wants to do things the easy way?

  27. September 20, 2008 at 11:21 pm

    Choices lead to consequences and they made their choice – I can’t work up any sympathy I’m afraid.

  28. scamps
    September 20, 2008 at 11:59 pm

    I’d write something funny about this, but I’m too busy being nauseous from all of the stupidity.

  29. September 21, 2008 at 2:14 am

    bridegroom
    A modern spelling of the earlier English word bridegrome, an alteration of Middle English bridegome (“bride’s man”). When gome, an old word for “man,” became obsolete and new generations of English speakers did not know what it meant, they simply replaced it with a similar-sounding contemporary word, grome (“serving lad”). Later grome became groom and, as an separate word, acquired the principal meaning of “servant who attends to horses.” . . .

  30. September 21, 2008 at 3:55 am

    Party A and Party B is so unromantic. Maybe they should have replaced bride and groom with Ball and Chain. Your first task as a married couple is to decide who is which.

    And as for the horrors of two little man statues, there should just be a law against it. And any combination of little mans and ladies, for that matter. If you need little people on your cake to remember why you are all there, it’s time to take a long hard look.

    If these poor oppressed people are so put out by Party A and Party B, maybe they could write bride and groom underneath, just so that they don’t have a crisis of identity. I mean you would hate to wake up one day and not be able to remember which one you were.

  31. sasha
    September 21, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    I’m kinda disappointed that most of these comments trivialize this couple’s concerns. They have a right to be upset. Yeah they brought their problems on themselves by not signing the marriage license but I understand their concerns. They are used to things being a certain way and suddenly everything changes and they are having trouble adjusting. I do agree that they should petition the state to offer two different forms. I’m all for equal rights across the board but I can also understand other people’s concerns.

  32. Katlyn
    September 21, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    WOW.
    I can’t believe anyone would even care enough to make such a complaint.

    And so what if “Party A” and “Party B” are not romantic?
    You’re filling out a legal document. There’s nothing romantic about that to begin with.
    It’s not as if you’ll be forced to refer to yourself as either Party A or Party B during the engagement, wedding, or any time after that. You can happily refer to yourself as the bride or groom, husband or wife when talking about your marriage.

    There is absolutely nothing oppressive about this.

  33. Jessica
    September 21, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Re: Ariane
    Actually, that’s what this couple did. They wrote “bride” and “groom” next to their names on the form, and the form was rejected because you’re not allowed to alter legal documents. So yeah, it was a lame bureaucratic thing, but then for them to actually refuse to fill out the form properly and complain about not being able to get health benefits, etc. is beyond ridiculous. I laughed for like an hour when I first heard this story because it’s so ironic.

  34. Sam
    September 21, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    I do sympathise. It’s a hard life for these heterosexual, probably middle class couples. I’m just curious though, how much did they even care about this thing. I can’t imagine the state have objected the words “bride” and “groom” being mentioned throughout the entire ceremony and reception.

  35. Amanda
    September 21, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    All I can say is *headdesk*

    I mean seriously, just, yeah…

    Sometimes I wish there were laws against stupidity, and then I realize that the government would have to define “stupidity” and we’d all be fucked.

  36. Charity
    September 21, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    They are used to things being a certain way and suddenly everything changes and they are having trouble adjusting.

    Yes, that would be called “privilege.” They are used to enjoying their heterosexual privilege without ever needing to give it a second thought. And the only thing that changed is that they had to sign a form that looked different – that was not exactly the way they wanted it to look. That’s all. They still have exactly all the same privileges they had before; the only thing in their way is their own perceived superiority. Compared to the situations of couples who are actually prohibited from marrying / prevented from having basic rights that married couples have, it is absolutely offensive to compare this in any way.

  37. Charity
    September 21, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    whoops, sorry, messed the tages up

  38. William
    September 22, 2008 at 11:43 am

    There is absolutely nothing oppressive about this.

    Yeah, absolutely nothing oppressive at all about having the state define your union to a partner in a way that you find personally repugnant. They might be fighting the fight for the wrong reason, but theres no reason they SHOULDN’T be able to be “bride and groom” if they want to be “bride and groom.”

    For a lot of people a marriage is one of the biggest events in their lives, full of social and religious meaning. The fight for gay marriage isn’t just about getting equal legal benefits, its also about giving everyone access to the same human connection and subjective experience. Thats why so many people simply aren’t willing to tolerate anything other than full marriage rights, not civil unions or some other kind of separate-but-equal commitment.

  39. Hershele Ostropoler
    September 22, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    This is the first bit of entertaining homophobia I’ve seen—“entertaining” because the only people being hurt are the homophobes themselves. I can’t laugh at Fred Phelps because he does upset people.

  40. Angela
    September 23, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    To some of the bloggers here laughing at the expense of this couple should really bare in mind that not all State and local municipalities recognize each and every legal document produced from somewhere else. I can understand the predicament should they move to another state. Even my marriage license of 25 years is not guarantee. A good example is when my husband and I moved from Michigan to Georgia.

  41. SarahMC
    September 23, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Charity, amen.

    Maybe these privileged doofuses are just confused about what this legal document means. Hint: it does not require you to call yourselves/one another “Party A” and “Party B.” In fact, you never have to pay any mind to the phrases “Party A” and “Party B” ever again. It will have no bearing on your relationship or your wedding ceremony whatsoever.

  42. Jadelyn
    September 23, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    They might be fighting the fight for the wrong reason, but theres no reason they SHOULDN’T be able to be “bride and groom” if they want to be “bride and groom.”

    Only they ARE “bride and groom”. Nobody’s stopping them calling themselves that. Nobody’s forcing them to use the words “Party A” and “Party B” in anything but the little piece of paper that nobody will ever see again. They can call themselves bride and groom all day long, in the ceremony, at the reception, whatever. At what point does it become acceptable for them to take away other peoples’ rights simply because they don’t like the wording on the form? I don’t give a flying damn if they find that “personally repugnant”, that still doesn’t give them some kind of right to be pandered to like you’re suggesting.

    Thats why so many people simply aren’t willing to tolerate anything other than full marriage rights, not civil unions or some other kind of separate-but-equal commitment.

    No, that was because the civil unions version of “separate-but-equal” was never equal. It’s quite disingenuous of you to suggest that a couple of bigots being “repulsed” by the new wording of the form is somehow equal to GLBTs fighting for real marriage equality.

  43. September 23, 2008 at 3:40 pm

    To some of the bloggers here laughing at the expense of this couple should really bare in mind that not all State and local municipalities recognize each and every legal document produced from somewhere else. I can understand the predicament should they move to another state. Even my marriage license of 25 years is not guarantee. A good example is when my husband and I moved from Michigan to Georgia.

    Uh, actually, if you’re straight your marriage license is a guarantee. See the full faith and credit clause, which same-sex couples aren’t entitled to under federal law.

  44. September 23, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    Yeah, absolutely nothing oppressive at all about having the state define your union to a partner in a way that you find personally repugnant. They might be fighting the fight for the wrong reason, but theres no reason they SHOULDN’T be able to be “bride and groom” if they want to be “bride and groom.”

    First, as Jadelyn said, they ARE bride and groom. Second, a marriage license is a legal contract facilitated by the state. It’s perfectly reasonable for the state to make that document gender-neutral, the way that many, many other legal documents are. Since when is “Party A” on a contract personally repugnant? I hope they aren’t planning on signing any other contracts or legal documents anytime soon…

  45. Angela
    September 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Jill,

    Georgia state employees are not the brightest lightbulbs (if you get my meaning).

  46. William
    September 24, 2008 at 1:57 am

    Only they ARE “bride and groom”. Nobody’s stopping them calling themselves that. Nobody’s forcing them to use the words “Party A” and “Party B” in anything but the little piece of paper that nobody will ever see again.

    No, but the legal document that gives their marriage legitimacy is written in a way they find objectionable. I just don’t see why the state would need to frame the document that way. It would be just as simple to put a couple of blanks on the page or to use the names of individuals. I mean, I like seeing bigots frustrated as much as the next guy, but this just seems unnecessary.

    At what point does it become acceptable for them to take away other peoples’ rights simply because they don’t like the wording on the form? I don’t give a flying damn if they find that “personally repugnant”, that still doesn’t give them some kind of right to be pandered to like you’re suggesting.

    Where, exactly, did I talk about taking away anyone’s rights or pandering to any specific party? My original suggestion was to do away with any labels for the parties on the contract and just let whoever is filling it out put in whatever they please. That would seem to me to cover the bases well enough and give people the choice to define themselves. In this case it happens to be a couple of assholes trying to cause a change other than what they actually claim. Still, even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

    No, that was because the civil unions version of “separate-but-equal” was never equal.

    No, it was never equal, at least partly because the words meant something. Even if a system was developed that was perfectly equal in every way except that same sex partnerships were called “civil unions” and opposite sex partnerships were called “marriage” I think a lot of people would object (I know I do). I’d rather people were able to decide for themselves how they will be identified.

    It’s quite disingenuous of you to suggest that a couple of bigots being “repulsed” by the new wording of the form is somehow equal to GLBTs fighting for real marriage equality.

    Equal? No, of course not. But this isn’t a competition. I’m not really interested in playing oppression Olympics. Marriage rights are vitally important, ideally I’d like to see virtually no restrictions on marriage, but part of that is the right to decide one’s own place in the world. A small part of that agency is deciding how one will be defined. No, it isn’t as important as the basic right, but that doesn’t mean that its an illegitimate concern.

    Second, a marriage license is a legal contract facilitated by the state.

    Which would seem to be the root of the marriage problem all together. I don’t really see why the state needs to be in the business of blessing unions between people. The only reasonable argument I can think of are the legal benefits of marriage (health insurance, inheritance, tax status, medical visitation, etc), but I don’t see why those things couldn’t be sorted out with contracts that have nothing to do with the state deciding who gets to commit to one another and under what terms and circumstances.

    It’s perfectly reasonable for the state to make that document gender-neutral, the way that many, many other legal documents are.

    Wouldn’t an absence of terms be the most neutral possible, allowing those entering into the marriage to decide how they will define themselves and their union?

    Since when is “Party A” on a contract personally repugnant?

    I don’t really care why or how reasonable someone’s concerns are. Making those kinds of value judgments is how we ended up defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I feel that the government ought to avoid those kinds of problems entirely and do the minimum necessary to protect the liberty of everyone. To me that means allowing any number of people of any number of genders to define themselves in any way they see fit.

Comments are closed.